Are Women Conditioned To Be Weak By Society?

You might be a Buddhist, but you're no Buddha. Community service doesn't make a person spiritual. And no, my last name isn't Bush.

finally an answer!.......and a judgement.....
so maybe i am no buddha, but i do not judge you personally- only myself.......
so what does that make you then? that is the real question you could be asking yourself.

you know how jesus said something like if your hand offends you, cut it off?
if something makes you angry shouldn't you work on that?

also i didnt say community service. that was an additional 100 hours in my life mandated by the court of boulder, colorado- but that's none of your
business. i said volunteering- you know, like at habitat for humanity all way across the country, the red cross, the nature conservancy.....and not
for money. they say freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose......

Men hold the highest paid jobs in the world because that's the way we grew up as a species. Women have been restricted to being nurturers and
caregivers. Naturally one would expect more men in the high paid jobs than women and more women as caregivers than men. Men have had all the
experience and opportunity to excel in academics. Centuries of that societal structure will not be reversed in a few generations. Having said that,
and I believe your graph agrees with me here, it does not mean women lack the intellectual depth to achieve anything a man can -- only that fewer of
them have had the opportunity to do so.

You brought up X and Y chromosomes only to tell me men have more variance in the end? That is no different than what the graph has already told us.

No one is disputing that men are smart. If not for men and their great contributions to the human race, we would not be where we are today. The
exact same thing can be said about women. The simple truth we can all agree upon in here is that we as men and women can achieve more
working together than fighting amongst ourselves who is smarter than who. In the end, there's no full-proof decisive way to determine this anyway.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Excuses, excuses.

A stressful life, loss of focus and having interest in doing other things is hardly just the preserve of females, is it ?

Yep, you're right, men are not immune to it either. I was merely pointing out that there are other factors, physiological for example, that can
affect one's performance which have nothing to do with their potential to achieve better. Top professional sportsmen can have off days if they're
not in the right frame of mind, point and case, Tiger Woods. This doesn't mean he lacks the potential to be a great golf player, best in the world
some might say.

Originally posted by IandEye
finally an answer!.......and a judgement.....

If I were judging I wouldn't have just said you're no Buddha.

so what does that make you then? that is the real question you could be asking yourself.

What does what make me? I'm many things to many people. Some good, some bad. The answer to your question depends on what exactly you're asking
me.

you know how jesus said something like if your hand offends you, cut it off? if something makes you angry shouldn't you work on that?

Who's angry? I've laughed while reading most of the posts in this thread.

i said volunteering- you know, like at habitat for humanity all way across the country, the red cross, the nature conservancy.....and not for
money. they say freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose......

Were those not services you provided for communities? Last I checked they were. Community service doesn't
necessarily always equate with court mandated work. And again, it doesn't make you spiritual.

Originally posted by IandEye
finally an answer!.......and a judgement.....

If I were judging I wouldn't have just said you're no Buddha.

so what does that make you then? that is the real question you could be asking yourself.

What does what make me? I'm many things to many people. Some good, some bad. The answer to your question depends on what exactly you're asking
me.

you know how jesus said something like if your hand offends you, cut it off? if something makes you angry shouldn't you work on that?

Who's angry? I've laughed while reading most of the posts in this thread.

i said volunteering- you know, like at habitat for humanity all way across the country, the red cross, the nature conservancy.....and not for
money. they say freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose......

Were those not services you provided for communities? Last I checked they were. Community service doesn't
necessarily always equate with court mandated work. And again, it doesn't make you spiritual.

well i disagree and i think anything can make you "spiritual" if you do it with a certain intention. even just looking at a flower. for me, a very
greedy as well as disabled person, it was doing physical work for the USA. so it was national service, not community, but i think if you have to be
so right about everything, that won't matter one bit to you. words are easy to manipulate.........sort of a feminine quality, don't you think?

You see, what your problem is here, is that you've already made up your mind on this issue that women and men are equal.

You can't analyse this topic objectively, because you've already come to a pre-conceived conclusion.

Imagine that, hypothetically men, on average, are more adept than women in certain areas that will help them achieve higher positions in the
workplace.

You would never be able to acknowledge that, because you've got an emotional attachment to your view on how the world should be, rather than
how it actually is.

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to accept that men and women are equally adept in most departments, if I see or was made aware of any
evidence to back it up. I have yet to see any, though.

I have no wish for men to be superior to women, however I got over having an idealist view of how the world should be a long time ago, and now just
acknowledge how the world really is - whether it's pc or not.

Originally posted by IandEye
but i think if you have to be so right about everything, that won't matter one bit to you.

On the contrary, I readily admit it when I'm proven wrong about something. I've done so recently in fact. Unfortunately for some of the posters in
this thread, claiming that one sex is better than the other over and over and over just doesn't make it so. Especially when that opinion is based on
a narrow worldview that doesn't allow for any explanations for anything aside from the one that "proves" said opinion is fact.

words are easy to manipulate.........sort of a feminine quality, don't you think?

So tell me, do you have multiple accounts or are you now just picking up accusations others have thrown hoping it'll stick this time since your Bush
accusation fell flat? Sure do seem to judge a lot, don't you?

Honestly though, I just find that particular accusation hilarious coming from you since I gave a link to a group who volunteers in communities and
also has a website called "Community Service" that's web address is communityservice.org. And I'm the one manipulating words and trying to change
their definition?

It was a Deliberate Attack on the SOCIETY of the Western World, in order to DOUBLE the labor Force, and get children into indoctrination (School) as
EARLY as possible.

There... the Children would Largely raise themselves(mentally), loosely governed by less and Less teachers, with more and more "Federal" agenda.

They put Poisons in our Water to make us Dumb, and throw off our sleep cycles, and keep us off balance... (Sleep Deprivation is a Well Known
interrogation technique)

They Keep us distracted with WHATEVER pretty, Shiny, Sound and Picture we want....

And they get EVERYONE to hate Everyone.

We become Spies for THEM, against Each-other.

What ELSE did you think that Feminism Was About?

Equality?

Seriously... if "Feminism" Was really about Equality... then they Wouldn't Call it "Feminism"

They would call it the "Humanist" movement, or something Equally Gender Neutral.

What is the Male Equivalent of "Feminist"?

"Masculinist".

But that sounds Sexist, Doesn't it?

Naturally one would expect more men in the high paid jobs than women and more women as caregivers than men.

Naturally.

Men have had all the experience and opportunity to excel in academics.

That is because they Have a Greater Capacity For it.

Centuries of that societal structure will not be reversed in a few generations.

This is NOT the Structure of the society that you are Complaining about.

IT is the STRUCTURE OF YOUR GENETIC CODE.

Having said that

Oh, Here We Go.

and I believe your graph agrees with me here

Oh, I'm absolutely SURE that you FEEL that it Does.

it does not mean women lack the intellectual depth to achieve anything a man can

Are we Talking about Depth, or Ability?

Because Intelligence is an Ability.

IT's not Something that you can LEARN....

IT is Something that You ARE.

only that fewer of them have had the opportunity to do so.

They had Less Opportunity, Because They had Less Ability.

But Now, We have to Hire people who are *LESS QUALIFIED* for a Job, BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER!

Instead of Hiring the Best Candidate.

And, Due to the Nature of Men's Intellectual Variance.

There are MORE High IQ Men, than there Are High IQ Women.

And, During this "Revolution", have you noticed the Economy Sliding?

The Federal Debt levels?

The Shrinking Productive Sector?

The Tyrannical Laws?

Feminism is a Part of their ATTACK STRATEGY.

They Manipulate the Emotions of the WOMEN of America, to get them to DESTROY America, and Enslave its populous.

Because Where the Women Go... the Men Will Follow.

And men are Supposed to Chase, Aren't They?

You brought up X and Y chromosomes only to tell me men have more variance in the end? That is no different than what the graph has already told
us.

I was giving you a Mechanism that Explained the Graph.

This is Called Science.

No one is disputing that men are smart. If not for men and their great contributions to the human race, we would not be where we are today. The
exact same thing can be said about women.

Yes... but their Contributions Were not in the Same Fields, were they?

The simple truth we can all agree upon in here is that we as men and women can achieve more working together than fighting amongst ourselves
who is smarter than who. In the end, there's no full-proof decisive way to determine this anyway.

I saw some threads regarding women's rights and thought it would be a good idea to ask the question: why do women allow themselves to be subjugated
by social conditioning telling them to - among other things - wear heels, dresses and grow their hair long? Or, perhaps, this isn't subjugation at
all? It's a thought-terminating-cliche, you might think, but is it really that obvious?

Cheers.

This is an outrageous statement. I am a women. I use the gym, I wear heels and have my hair long. I love summer dresses and I also love jeans. It
ridiculous to say we are conditioned to wear that anymore than I can say men are conditions to wear suits to work, short hair, beer bellies. we are
all conditioned to act according to how society likes and expects us to act. It by no means defines us as individuals and we should be glad that in
someways these small conditions are there. Could you imagine if there were no formalities and you had to think everyday what style of clothes to wear.
what style to wear your hair. How to talk? I mean somethings make life easier. Otherwise a great deal of us would never leave the house because we
would be stuck in front of the mirror trying to decide this from that!

I am no more conditioned that the average man. We are all programmed to some extent. You just have to use it too your advantage or suffer the
indignity of blending in!

I have had thoughts about this, how the corporate hand plays us all.
And I have always suggested it had something to do with our natural male/female behaviour.
We all know, that females in other races also make themselves stand out for the potential mate.
I think this is a part of us that is pretty easily exploited.

"Buy this , look like that or else the males wont want you'

The males on their turn start to think that certain looks or added values matter in the decision because of social factors, where of course only the
health of the female matters.
And so we are kept running around catching up with the latest whatever.

Now I think females are targeted the most in this through glossy-magazines, mtv, stuff like that and with that are more subject to 'weak-mindedness'
running around buying that newest eye-liner.
Men on their part run after these ladies and do everything to be accepted by the 'up to date' female(and everyone whos watching OHNO).

But the question said weak in general.
Now it could have been said that the ladies stayed home all day and have more, but lighter, work there.
Where the men went out and do all the supposed manwork, hehe.
It seems to have always been this way and in that sense the women didn;t get as much excecise as men and thus have gotten less chance to get
stronger.

But of course the male and female bodies are noticeably different.
Males tend to be buildt for heavier duty stuff.
It seems to me that, for whatever it is, its a natural 'plan'.

So in that sense, if some entity where to keep women physically weaker it would be nature.

I saw some threads regarding women's rights and thought it would be a good idea to ask the question: why do women allow themselves to be subjugated
by social conditioning telling them to - among other things - wear heels, dresses and grow their hair long? Or, perhaps, this isn't subjugation at
all? It's a thought-terminating-cliche, you might think, but is it really that obvious?

Cheers.

Who cares about the oppressor class. Seriously, the Matriarchy is the most oppressive social structure ever and is doomed to the same fate of other
fascist social structures.

Where did you grow up? I'm really interested to know.
My family on my father's side is that way, too - women and men just are the people they are and the strong ones in the family are a mixture of males
and females, also the weaker ones, there's a male and a female.

I think you're right about the urban areas. The difference is definitely more marked in these concentrated places, where it is of course easier to
manipulate people en masse. Those counties that have strong gender stereotypes throughout their culture are highly developed and urbanised.

In countries with less urban development, it is more acceptable and easier for a woman to be completely feminine and high level professional, she
doesn't need to exhibit male characteristics to be respected. Of course there are exceptions, but there does seem to be a parallel.

What annoys me about the culture I'm in (UK) is that women are encouraged to think they have to show ability to make it in the male way to be accepted
and respected, and if she's very feminine or thinks/talks in a very feminine way she will be taken less seriously. I have come across this myself at
university. A very feminine style of writing in the degree I did brought lower marks (even when all the criteria was met and the standard as good),
and when I made the writing style more male, higher marks.

I think you hit the mark with the urban thing, and this proves that it's completely conditioned.

I do equate the american ideals of feminine appearance with weakness. Not inherent, but as chosen forms of handicap.

Watching a woman outrun a T-Rex while wearing high heels in Jurassic World recently had me rolling my eyes.
When the two main characters looked each other in the eyes at the end, and he asked, "What do we do now?"
I just assumed she'd say, "I don't about you, but I am taking off these heels I have been running around in for the last six hours."
But no. Reality is not the goal here, obviously, what was I thinking?

I had long hair for most of my life and only decided to cut it short about two years ago, and will never grow it out again.
I found out I can do much more, be much more active this way. I can take a shower and wash my hair as many times a day as I want. Which frees me up to
do all kinds of sports or physical work. I used to limit what I'd do because of the hassle of drying and styling I'd have to schedule in, and the way
my hair would be smelling like horse, or sweat, if I didn't. It used to get in my way- I'd have it blow in my face and obscure my vision in just the
wrong moment, or even tied back, galloping through the forest a hanging prickly vine would catch on it and nearly rip my scalp off - these things
would have the have the effect of causing me to hesitate to do certain things in certain moments.

The make up too- another time consuming thing which had various set backs which caused me to avoid doing some things at some moments.

Hollywood is on a "sexy tough chick" thing right now, with women not only racing monsters in heels, with their make up intact after hours of that in
the jungle and some waterfall jumps, but also quickly saving others in dire circumstances while their huge implants bounce and sway enticingly. I'll
tell you something- when you have big boobs (real or not) you hesitate to run around, and if you do, you grab those puppies to keep them from pulling
on your skin and back and knocking you off balance- your hands are not free for the heroic acts.

I think that collectively, we are more or less conscious that in reality, men kinda like feeling needed by someone weaker, it often strokes their ego.
It is part of how women attract a mate - playing weak. (and usually being passive aggressive, expressing our power in more subtle covert manipulative
ways instead of ouvert acts).

Of current american cultural expressions, Mad Max was at least a bit more realistic- if you are going to go ahead and be strong, you might end up with
a stump for an arm, being dirty, with no make up, and no high heels. The botox and filler, you won't have time for, no more than the implants, which
would just hinder you.

Play the game of object to be possessed and protected, or not. That is the question.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.